Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 9, 2008 2:25pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: which is worse

Hey D & M, as one of the original "Donna bashers" born of my concert experiences of the 70s, I will say that there are a number, including the revitalized StSt (though I much prefer the earlier uptempo ones) on which her harmonies are just perfect.

She takes alot of crap, but she could shine on a number of songs. Just keep it turned down during most PITBs of that era...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mcgannahan Date: Feb 9, 2008 3:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: which is worse

just having a chick in the lineup just didn't suit the dead in my opinion. i mean, yeah, i learned to live with donna, but i will never really like her. keith was amazing, but he should have worn the pants in the family and kept her out of the grateful dead.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 9, 2008 4:05pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: which is worse

That's a good point my friend.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: L.A. Women Date: Feb 9, 2008 3:55pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: which is worse

Most of the sounds Brent used in the early - mid 80's are really bad. It wasn't until around 87 that he started using a decent sound. Even then I think Brent was limited in his range, full of energy, but that will only take you so far.